Estrada v. Tassey et al

Filing 149

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 145 Motion to Compel signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 1/21/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID ESTRADA,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

GIPSON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13cv00919 LJO DLB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
(Document 145)

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Plaintiff David Estrada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on August 7, 2013. Pursuant to
the Court’s screening order and Plaintiff’s notice of willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims,
this action is proceeding against (1) Defendants Gipson and Espinosa for retaliation in violation of the
First Amendment; and (2) Defendants Gipson, Espinosa, Lambert and Cavazos for violation of the
Eighth Amendment.

23

Discovery closed on December 15, 2014.

24
25

On December 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel third-parties E. Medina and G.
Hopkins to respond to discovery. The motion is sealed.1

26
27
28

1

Although the motion is sealed, the Court finds no reason to seal the instant order.

1

1
2

Defendants did not file an opposition and the Court deems the matter suitable for decision
pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff moves to compel Correctional Lieutenant G. Hopkins and Sergeant E. Medina to
respond to requests for production of documents. According to his attachments, Plaintiff served the
discovery on October 23, 2014, and November5 3, 2014.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 provides that “[a] party may serve on any other party”
requests for production of documents. Therefore, requests for production of documents, as well as
other forms of discovery, are limited to the parties in an action. Lt. Hopkins and Sgt. Medina are not
parties to this action and Plaintiff cannot serve them with discovery under Rule 34. The Court
therefore cannot compel them to provide responses.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel non-parties to respond to his discovery requests is
DENIED.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

January 21, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2